[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: IPv6 adoption behavior


Ralph Droms [mailto:rdroms@cisco.com] wrote:
> How does Skype provide point-to-point connections
> through NAT without a centralized intermediary?

See inline.

Suresh Krishnan [mailto:suresh.krishnan@ericsson.ca] wrote:

> >You are wrong :) They tasted the filth of being behind NAT's
> >and not being able to do a number of things including VoIP.
> I am no NAT apologist but I do not think this is entirely 
> true. Skype runs amazingly well behind NATs.
> As long as NAT is an option people will find 
> ways to twist applications to work with it. It is the application 
> developer who feels the pain. Not the end user. 

Skype "works" because it acts like an end to end program.
It connects from a client to the server.
The server has a public un-NATted IP.

There are no IP's being passed in the packets apparently
like in FTP etc. Thus there is no problem either.

If both users are behind NAT's the packets get redirected
via other hosts 'close' to those hosts using a overlay
network above the internet.. named KaZaA in this case.
Same can be done with Teredo and other overlay methods.
Actually at the time of the start of the 6bone when
everything was tunneled IPv6 this actually was the case.

This is not end to end though, it is a workaround
around NAT. Do we want that every application developer
to start working around it? I don't want to. One is
also depending on, not your upstream, but on third parties
to route your packets inside the KaZaA network.


Version: Unfix PGP for Outlook Alpha 13 Int.
Comment: Jeroen Massar / jeroen@unfix.org / http://unfix.org/~jeroen/


IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6